On 09/09/2013 08:56 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Dear Mike Dunn,
>
> [...]
>
>>>> +static struct of_device_id pwm_of_match[] = {
>>>> + { .compatible = "marvell,pxa250-pwm", .data = &pwm_id_table[0]},
>>>
>>> Surely, data can be NULL, no ?
>>
>> It could, in which case pxa_pwm_get_id_dt() would explicitly return
>> &pwm_id_table[0] instead of the .data element of the of_device_id. Not
>> sure which way is better and why. That dumb platform_device_id table is
>> causing all kinds of nuisance :)
>
> Is the pwm_id_table needed at all anymore?
If the original driver is modified to switch to the one-device-instance-per-pwm
approach, it can be removed. But changing the original driver will require
changes to all the client device instantiations. Ac case can be made for the
change, though. It purports to identify the number of pwms on the processor,
but in fact fails at it.
>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> @@ -145,6 +199,8 @@ static int pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>
>>>> pwm->chip.ops = &pxa_pwm_ops;
>>>> pwm->chip.base = -1;
>>>> pwm->chip.npwm = (id->driver_data & HAS_SECONDARY_PWM) ? 2 : 1;
>>>>
>>>> + pwm->chip.of_xlate = of_pwm_xlate_with_flags;
>>>> + pwm->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 3;
>>>
>>> Are these two settings needed ?
>>
>> Yes. See drivers/pwm/core.c:of_pwmchip_add(), where they are set to
>> default values of of_pwm_simple_xlate and 2 if left uninitialized.
>
> OK
>
Thanks,
Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
